Israeli leadership is committed to having the goal of the peace process be peace. Such a position is apparently an affront to J Street's worldview, the focus of which is the creation of a Palestinian State, whether or not that will bring peace.

Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas has said he will never recognize a Jewish state and there will be no Jews allowed in a Palestinian State.

In a May 22 email to the many thousands on J Street’s virtual rolodex, the organization that calls itself “pro-Israel, pro-peace” revealed its true nature: it is focused solely and exclusively on the creation of a Palestinian State, and peace be damned.

It did this by exhorting its American followers to demand that the democratically elected Israeli leadership say out loud what J Street wants it to say.

J Street cued up from U.S. secretary of state John Kerry’s efforts to launch yet another initiative aimed at achieving peace between Israel and its Arab Palestinian neighbors.

But it then takes what it wants to be true, asserts it as if there is no other truth, and demands that Americans get aggressive with the Israeli government to make a public commitment to J Street’s view of reality, rather than what the Israeli government knows is reality.

Here’s the sleight of hand in J Street’s email:

The basis of any such effort, of course, has to be a two-state solution — an independent Palestine existing in peace and security alongside Israel. But is this the policy of the government of Israel?

Some members of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s governing coalition are openly stating not only that they do not personally believe in a two-state solution but that the two-state solution is not official government policy. They wrangled about it publicly in a parliamentary committee meeting this week.

Member of Knesset and former Speaker Reuven Rivlin (Likud) noted “substantial divides inside the government” on the question.

And MK Orit Struck (Jewish Home) came right out and said “two states for two peoples is not the government’s official position … it is perhaps Netanyahu’s position… but has not been accepted as the government’s position.”

J Street subtly takes what it says is a basis for a solution and converts it into the solution. In contrast, Israeli leadership is committed to having the goal of the peace process be peace. Such a position is apparently an affront to J Street’s worldview.

It is especially chutzpadik to demand that the Israeli government bend its knee to J Street and declare its support for the creation of a Palestinian state at this time of profound unrest in the Middle East.

This is a singularly dangerous time in Middle East history. The terrorist-driven Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda and its affiliates are on the ascent. The closest thing to a moderate Arab Palestinian leader is Mahmoud Abbas whose term as president expired almost 5 years ago. Abbas routinely and publicly lionizes current and ancient terrorists and frequently admits, although mostly in Arabic, that he is not committed to peace with Israel.

And Mahmoud Abbas is on record that not one Jew will be allowed to live and breathe in any Palestinian State. So what exactly is it that J Street is demanding?

J Street’s letter imperiously casts anyone who disagrees with its vision of a perfect Middle East – one with a Palestinian State (whether or not there is peace) – as a roadblock to peace. The hubris is dazzling.

For there to be any hope of progress, the Israeli government must state unequivocally that support for a two-state solution is a core principle of its foreign policy – as it has been under every Prime Minister since Yitzhak Rabin.

A simple declarative statement by Netanyahu or by Israel’s US ambassador Michael Oren would dispel these doubts immediately. They need to speak out now.

Adding still more urgency to its demand, J Street includes a quote from MK Ronen Hoffman, “how is it possible to expect the Palestinians to enter negotiations when part of our government opposes a Palestinian state?”

And yet, no demand is made of any Arab Palestinian leader to commit to peace with Israel.

Why isn’t J Street’s question turned around? Shouldn’t supporters of Israel logically ask this question, instead: “How is it possible to expect the Israeli government to enter negotiations with Arab Palestinian leaders when there is overwhelming evidence that few if any of the leadership supports peace with the Jewish State of Israel?”

J Street ends its May 22 email pooh-poohing the idea that mere talks between the parties is useful. Again it asserts its own position as if it were ultimate truth: “But what’s needed isn’t talk, it’s a resolution of this conflict and that will only happen if both sides are clearly committed to reaching the same goal: a two-state solution.”

About the Author:Lori Lowenthal Marcus is the US correspondent for The Jewish Press. She is a recovered lawyer who previously practiced First Amendment law and taught in Philadelphia-area graduate and law schools. You can reach her by email: Lori@JewishPressOnline.com

If you don't see your comment after publishing it, refresh the page.

Our comments section is intended for meaningful responses and debates in a civilized manner. We ask that you respect the fact that we are a religious Jewish website and avoid inappropriate language at all cost.

If you promote any foreign religions, gods or messiahs, lies about Israel, anti-Semitism, or advocate violence (except against terrorists), your permission to comment may be revoked.

The two state solution is a fraud. Just as Islam as a “religion of peace” is a complete and utter sham.

I stumbled upon some books a few years ago and happened to read them back to back; The Looming Tower, The Haj and Because They Hate. The Haj by Leon Uris helped to open my eyes to this “right of return” issue but I wanted to know more so I ordered some books online:

I won't go into a lot of bruhaha except to say that the article on “Jihad” by Sheikh Abdullah bin Humaid, that I found in my Summarized Sahih Al-Bukhari, pretty much decided it for me. I've been issueing the following challenge and have yet to get an answer to this day:

If Islam is the religion of peace, where in Abdullah bin Humaid's article on jihad can I find the equivalent of “Love Thy Neighbor”? “and good will toward men”? And explain its prominence, and significance almost as an “Introduction”, in a book that's considered second only to the Koran: My Summarized Sahih Al-Bukhari. Also address “jihad” as it's defined in Reliance of the Traveller and answer the same question. (Chapter O-9.0: Jihad O: Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada signifying warfare to establish the religion.) Also compare Humaid's “jihad” and Emmet Fox' Sermon on the Mount and tell me which one best represents a spirit of Love and compassion.

As far as the “right of return” thing goes, Martin Kramer summed it up niceely for me:

Gaza is a place with no Israeli settlements, from which Israel has totally withdrawn to the 1967 lines, and which nonetheless has become a Hamas terror state. That’s what happens in conditions of Gazafication. So when people say that in a two-state solution, Palestinians would have a "right of return" to the West Bank and not Israel, I do not find that particularly reassuring either. Any influx of Palestinians across the Jordan poses a problem for Israel, and it is naive to dismiss it. I would like to hear how, in a two-state scenario, Gazafication of the West Bank can be prevented. I haven't heard it yet.

Neither have I.

Read The Haj by Leon Uris. And ask these questions:

What year did the nation of Palestine come into existance?
What were its national borders and what year did it cease to exist?
What currency did the nation of Palestine use and why is there no history of it?
Name one leader to the “nation of Palestine” prior to Yasser Arafat.

Subscribe to Jihad Watch and the Middle East Forum/Quarterly and read Raymond Ibrahim and others.

J Street is a fraud as well. To take these facts and what Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas has said: “he will never recognize a Jewish state and there will be no Jews allowed in a Palestinian State.” Not to know that the “two-state solution” is suicide for Israel is either beyond stupid or someones got an ulterior motive. Here's a little more of my “education” regarding this issue:

The Source by James Michener.
Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld, (CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood), That's Conspiring to Islamize America by Gaubatz and Sperry.
Because They Hate: A Survivor of Islamic Terror Warns America by Brigitte Gabriel.
Slavery, Terrorism and Islam, (and Holocaust in Rwanda), by Peter Hammond.
The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism by Andrew G. Bostom
The Legacy of Jihad by Andrew G. Bostom MD
A Concise History of the Crusades by Thomas F. Madden
The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America by David Horowitz.
Ivory Towers On Sand: The Failure of Middle Eastern Studies in America by Martin Kramer.
Indoctrination U: The Left's War Against Academic Freedom by David Horowitz.
Invasion: How America Still Welcomes Terrorists, Criminals and Other Foreign Menaces to Our Shores by Michelle (the hottest woman on the planet) Malkin.
Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives have Penetrated Washington by Paul Sperry.
American Jihad: The Terrorists Living Among Us by Steven Emerson.
The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America by Andre C. McCarthy
Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance by Pamela Geller.
Infidel by Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
The Book of Jewish Knowledge by Nathan Ausubel.
Justice Not Vengeance by Simon Wiesenthal.
The Forsaken: An American Tragedy in Stalin's Russia by Tim Tzouliadis.
The New Moody Atlas of the Bible by Barry J. Beitzel
The Al Qaeda Reader by Raymond Ibrahim.

I really don't want to "pile on" the Muslims, but I'd like to add something interesting to Mr. Singleton's comments. I happened to see a quote from a very famous and highly regarded man, Sir Winston Churchill, concerning the subject of Islam in his [Churchill's] day.

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries!
Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia.
in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many.
countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods.
of commerce and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the.
Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and.
refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan.
law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as.
a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the.
faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion.
paralyzes the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde.
force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant.
and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising.
fearless warriors at every step, and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it (Islam) has vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.”.

The big difference between Churchill's era and today is that Islam no longer vainly struggles against science. It uses oil money to buy the technology needed to make advanced weapons systems.

Like everyone else, Sir Winston Churchill had his faults and he was not correct about everything. But we would do well to consider his insights when we think about the problems we face today.

What do you think they want? The answer's obvious: no recognition of Israel as the Jewish state, a divided Jerusalem, & the right of return to Israel. In other words, they're telling Israel: "Just give up the store & there'll be peace."